@tbenany.bsky.social
Associate Director at the Dean Rusk Intl Law Center• UGA Law• International Law Academic. The views expressed on this page, are personal and are not related to my institutional affiliations.
A common example used by the “multi-bloc” people is the BRICS. I don’t see the BRICS as a bloc for many reasons, not the least of which are the divisions amongst its members. I think the multipolar and multi-bloc typology could be too outdated to explain the current world order.
February 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
A common example used by the “multi-bloc” people is the BRICS. I don’t see the BRICS as a bloc for many reasons, not the least of which are the divisions amongst its members. I think the multipolar and multi-bloc typology could be too outdated to explain the current world order.
Those who see multi-polarity haven’t explained who those are. Those who argue for a multi-bloc world have also failed to explain the constituents of those blocs.
February 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Those who see multi-polarity haven’t explained who those are. Those who argue for a multi-bloc world have also failed to explain the constituents of those blocs.
Land grab and territorial integrity are up for grabs as long as one State claims to have enough authority and raw power. I don’t think that this shifts leads to a more stable world order. If we reflect on the past, I think the world has been there before and it wasn’t pleasant for anyone!
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
Land grab and territorial integrity are up for grabs as long as one State claims to have enough authority and raw power. I don’t think that this shifts leads to a more stable world order. If we reflect on the past, I think the world has been there before and it wasn’t pleasant for anyone!
The pure “raw power” language eats into this argumentative space that international law created. States do not need to tap into international law anymore. The most basic “settled” norms of international law are being undermined by raw power!
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
The pure “raw power” language eats into this argumentative space that international law created. States do not need to tap into international law anymore. The most basic “settled” norms of international law are being undermined by raw power!
The common behavior, nonetheless, was the sprinkling of some legal language to justify and legitimize international moves.
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
The common behavior, nonetheless, was the sprinkling of some legal language to justify and legitimize international moves.
Other States also tap into international law to contest and challenge this legitimacy. I believe that the unsettled nature of international law is a desired feature for a lot States; it makes it both permissive and constraining depending on a given set of facts.
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
Other States also tap into international law to contest and challenge this legitimacy. I believe that the unsettled nature of international law is a desired feature for a lot States; it makes it both permissive and constraining depending on a given set of facts.
I also think the recent series of events negatively impact international law. I’ve always been convinced that international law is an argumentative institution; States tap into this mystic repository of international law to add legitimation of their actions.
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
I also think the recent series of events negatively impact international law. I’ve always been convinced that international law is an argumentative institution; States tap into this mystic repository of international law to add legitimation of their actions.
I disagree with those who argue that we are shifting towards a multi-bloc or a multi-polar world. I don’t see a reshuffle towards any order, rather a disorder. If you have enough “guns, bullets, and tanks” you have enough raw power and thus agency in the current state of affairs.
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
I disagree with those who argue that we are shifting towards a multi-bloc or a multi-polar world. I don’t see a reshuffle towards any order, rather a disorder. If you have enough “guns, bullets, and tanks” you have enough raw power and thus agency in the current state of affairs.
Vance and Hegseth (specially the latter) have been using a language of power. “Raw power…guns and bullets… tanks” are what matter. Not “diplomacy and words”. It seems that. In my view this pushes the world to an anarchic “power based realist” order.
February 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
Vance and Hegseth (specially the latter) have been using a language of power. “Raw power…guns and bullets… tanks” are what matter. Not “diplomacy and words”. It seems that. In my view this pushes the world to an anarchic “power based realist” order.